If credit card companies can verify activation from your home phone why can't we have majority rule & control by the legal citizen with some sort of security system in place!
2006-09-21 04:37:10 · 10 answers · asked by bulabate 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Over & over again brainwashed public school teaching arise on how majority rule can't & won't work! Well guess what our Representative Government is not working for the majority of citizen's! I would rather have direct input & control then no input or control & rule by the wealthy! My vote is not effective input or control! JOKE that it is!
2006-09-21 08:40:04 · update #1
It is time but the criminals in our governement will never let that happen - who would line their pockets?
2006-09-21 04:52:10 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Majority rule is bad because the rights of the minority do not exist.
Furthermore, a group of people can just vote themselves a largesse from the treasury if they make a majority. Basically, they just single someone out, confiscate their wealth, and redistribute it. This still happens in a representative democracy, but minority rights are protected better, especially because of the U.S. constitution, which requires more than a majority to change.
Our leaders are supposed to lead us, not pander to our whims. They should be wiser than us, privvy to more information, and take the time to learn about the big picture before making decisions (including historical perspective). Few people do this, I present the whole Government Section of Yahoo Answers as evidence.
2006-09-21 15:06:06 · answer #2 · answered by primenumber 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't know if we're there yet or not. Electronic voting would leave WAY too much room for fraud in my opinion. Besides, people don't read the papers or pay enough attention as it is. They base their opinions on 30 second blips from the evening news, do we really want everyone voting on every legislative issue that comes up when most people don't pay close enough attention to the major issues? Personally I don't. Besides, we'd still need the lawyers...errr excuse me, congressmen to write up the laws, hash out the differences, make the compromises, etc. etc before any law could be put out there for the general public to vote on.
Even with its flaws our form of representative government seems to work fairly well and I have yet to see anything better. I'm not even sure a pluralistic/parlaimentary government is better, they seem to do a whole lot of nothing because of the infighting and bickering.
2006-09-21 11:49:14 · answer #3 · answered by Tower of T 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Good question.
Some things to think about:
-Will this replace the three branches of government or just the Legislative branch? If it replaces all three, what about checks and balances?
-the majority of Americans live in metropolitan areas. Will rural areas loose too much power?
-Will more populous states like California, New York, Forida, and Texas have too much power?
-What will happen to schools? Much of the tax and spending policies are controlled locally within school districts. Would the majority (people outside of affluent school districts) vote for funding through a larger demographic general fund? Would this be good or bad for schools?
-Should we have general elections for Supreme Court justices and administrative branch cabinet members?
-Who will decide what bills will be voted on?
-How will we debate and amend bills?
-Could we impeach Administrative and Judicial branch members through this system?
-Would a national electronic referendum system work better than complete change?
2006-09-21 12:22:26 · answer #4 · answered by imnogeniusbutt 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The elected representatives of the people are supposed to represent the people, not the party and not the special interests or corporations that donate to their national party.
The problem is that politicians are aligned with their party and vote along party line, not for ideological purposes, but because they don't want to vote for the other party's idea. If people held their representatives accountable to respect their wishes and not sit around drafting designer legislation to pay back major contributors the system would work as intended.
2006-09-21 11:52:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
The problem with pure majority rule is that the majority >ALWAYS< will ride roughshod over the needs and rights of the minority. Our representational system was intended to elect representatives who would do what was right for the nation as a whole, not necessarily what the majority wanted. Obviously, it was a good intention but has failed miserably.
2006-09-21 11:41:12 · answer #6 · answered by spongeworthy_us 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Are you stupid? Last time I saw the Bill of Right and Declaration of Independence, it said just that. I suggest you go back and take High School Social Studies 101 !
2006-09-21 11:45:18 · answer #7 · answered by Cup_of_Day 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Your system is already working. it may need the occasional tweak, but why change fundamentally a great system?
Who do you think would gain by such a change?
Most people people who espouse radical changes to a democratic system only do so because they are unhappy with the previously determined decrees.
Patience, padawan, change happens and the bad people get voted out eventually, or else history remembers them more kindly.
2006-09-21 11:42:27 · answer #8 · answered by aka DarthDad 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
We already have this is place. It sometime appears that it doesn't work but in the longer run I think it does.
2006-09-21 11:53:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
You tend to confuse me.Is it not the situation now? If so there are remedies available in democratic polity. have those remedies been tried and exhausted?
2006-09-21 11:43:10 · answer #10 · answered by openpsychy 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋